Quote:
Originally Posted by Etoile
I disagree with you - I think that providing some access in certain settings is better than providing no access. I fully recognize that it is not acceptable, and full access should always be provided. However, if it was me, and I had a choice between understanding part of it and understanding nothing at all, I would want to have at least some idea of what was going on. The ideal situation, of course, is to have fully qualified interpreters for every setting...but in reality that's very difficult to achieve.
|
I should have said "never as a long-term solution." Providing "not-OK" service
temporarily "in a pinch" is sometimes a practical real-life necessity. It's not acceptable as a solution on a long-term basis. But from the
consumer viewpoint even that might not be acceptable to them.
Quote:
|
You are right, of course, that what the consumer feels is important is what matters. That is exactly why I don't interpret in religious settings - I would be providing substandard interpreting services. If it is a choice between me and no interpreter at all, I would ask the deaf consumer what they wanted. But my preference is not to interpret in religious settings because I am not familiar enough with them.
|
...and that's why I don't interpret in courts.
You're right that terps shouldn't accept assignments for which they are not qualified or not comfortable.